Key Takeaways:
This graph provides a view of the distribution of feeding practices known, separated by gendered household type. When viewing this widget (with zero’s excluded), it becomes clear that the two household types do not appear to have significantly different numbers of feeding practices known. It does lead to the belief that those in the Titukulane program on average know fewer feeding practices, while those in Takunda know significantly more.
Key Takeaways:
This graph provides a view of the distribution of feeding practices known, separated by gendered household type. When viewing this widget (with zero’s INCLUDED), we see that across both household types, participants are significantly more likely to know zero (0) feeding practices than one or more. Overall, both household types have similar distributions of feeding practices known, and the coloring of the dots shows that program may be a stronger driver of knowledge than gendered household type.
Key Takeaways:
This interactive data table allows the program coordinators to view and sort through the cleaned and mapped dataset. These programs have never been analyzed together (to date, they’ve produced country specific reports), as a result being able to easily view the new variables will aid in the applications of the research.
Key Takeaways:
This barchart shows feeding practices known as a binary variable with participants either knowing 0 practices or 1 or more practices. Without the noise of gendered household type, this graph clearly shows that Takunda participants are more likely to know 1 or more feeding practices.
Key Takeaways:
This graph shows that interventions participated in has a slightly positive relationship with feeding practices known. Titukulane participants have a wider range of total interventions participated in (0 to 18), while Takunda participants participated in 0 to 10 interventions.